Speechwriters Content On History`s Sidelines

April 17, 1990|By Chris McConnell.

WASHINGTON — Before President Franklin Roosevelt gave his famous first inaugural address in 1933, he reportedly transcribed his speechwriter`s draft into his own hand and even signed a memo claiming his transcription as the original in an attempt to take credit for its writing as well as its delivery.

The speech`s true author, Raymond Moley, later documented his authorship of the address, but claims to authorship remain an exception to the general rule of anonymity among Washington`s speechwriters. While some, such as Theodore Sorensen (for President John Kennedy), and Peggy Noonan (for Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush), have won recognition for their work, most political wordsmiths continue to work in the ghostwriter`s tradition of submitting their work to politicians, and occasionally history, unsigned.

``In general, I think we`re anonymous people,`` said Dale Tate, assistant secretary of public affairs in the Department of Labor and a former speechwriter for Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.). Tate speculated that speechwriters generally share a willingness to work behind the scenes without expectation of public recognition or credit.

Speechwriters on President Bush`s staff, in fact, learn from the outset that their work will go down in history as the president`s words, said Chriss Winston, director of speechwriting at the White House. Also describing the speechwriter`s job as an ``anonymous position,`` Winston explained that the writers` work at any rate should not reflect their own style but that of the president`s.

``The point is that the speeches are the president`s words,`` she said.

Congressional wordsmiths echoed this attitude, expressing no desire to take credit for their writing, and explaining that their work reflects someone else`s speaking style anyway.

Writing for the speaker

For example, David Stricklin, an assistant to Rep. Glenn Poshard (D-Ill.), said he tries to pay close attention to Poshard`s speech patterns so he can reproduce the phrasings when composing speeches for the representative. ``I try to put myself in his shoes,`` Stricklin said.

On Sen. Alan Dixon`s staff, aides construct speeches largely from the Illinois Democrat`s comments during meetings about the speeches, a Dixon assistant said. ``Basically, we all just scribble notes,`` said Craig Lovitt, a Dixon aide.

But re-creating someone else`s speech is not always so easy, and speechwriters admit they occasionally put the wrong words in their bosses`

mouths. Brian Lott, a press secretary for Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), recalled one lengthy and dramatic sidetrack that resulted when he tried to insert a sentimental anecdote about a soldier into a Veterans Day speech he was writing for Costello.

``Emotion carries you away,`` Lott said of the story, which the representative axed from the speech. He also emphasized, as all the speechwriters did, that the member of Congress reads and edits all the speeches before delivering them. Describing all his speeches as Costello`s comments, Lott said he feels the words become Costello`s once the

representative edits and speaks them.

Lott and his fellow ghostwriters are certainly not the first writers to relinquish credit in this way. Along with the account of Roosevelt`s inauguration, author Kathleen Hall Jamieson`s book on political speechmaking, ``Eloquence in an Electronic Age,`` mentions ghosted speeches dating from as early as ancient Greece.

According to Jamieson, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) and Pope Julius II (1443-1513) employed speechwriters. The Roman philosopher Seneca aided Nero in writing his first speech as Roman emperor, Jamieson writes, and Julius Caesar may have even had help in coining ``Veni, vidi, vici`` (``I came, I saw, I conquered``).

Jamieson also recounts tales of American politicians` reliance on speechwriters, including Douglas McKay`s candid comment during his 1956 campaign for a Senate seat in Oregon. Concluding a lengthy speech, McKay said, ``And now I`d like to say a few words of my own.``

And one anecdote includes a quote from a letter by George Washington in which the first president asks Alexander Hamilton to revise one of his speeches into a simple, honest voice ``even if you should think it best to throw the whole into a different form.``

But the scaled-down rhetoric of today`s speeches is far removed from the relatively ornate language of Washington`s day, Lott said. He observed that a speech`s content today seems more important than its delivery, and he added that he usually tries to focus his work on two or three simple and relevant facts.

``A lot of the style has gone out of speechwriting,`` Lott said. ``You don`t find one- or two-hour great oratory debates.``